18:38:37 <bijan> ...can we just say we'll take it at input and see you at LC for that document?

...can we just say we'll take it at input and see you at LC for that document?←

18:39:06 <bijan> ...The *real* problem, however, is a specific sentence in this document, "It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such importing produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2 Full Semantics document.""

...The *real* problem, however, is a specific sentence in this document, "It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such importing produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2 Full Semantics document.""←

18:48:22 <schneid> schneid: I do not want to have model-theoretic semantics for owl:incompatibleWith in Full, when there are no model-theoretic semantics in the Direct Semantics

Michael Schneider: I do not want to have model-theoretic semantics for owl:incompatibleWith in Full, when there are no model-theoretic semantics in the Direct Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←

18:48:33 <bijan> ivan: We agreed that we would make responses "in thread"

18:58:32 <bijan> alanr: In the chairs meeting, we wanted to generate a "unified view of owl". Where there are distinctions, we should highlight it. Where there are no-distinctions, we should avoid any impressions that there are.

Alan Ruttenberg: In the chairs meeting, we wanted to generate a "unified view of owl". Where there are distinctions, we should highlight it. Where there are no-distinctions, we should avoid any impressions that there are.←

19:13:15 <bijan> alanr: My only concern is that we already have a some tension with the XML syntax with people pushing back on it

Alan Ruttenberg: My only concern is that we already have a some tension with the XML syntax with people pushing back on it←

19:14:10 <bijan> pfps: There's good use and bad use of xml schema. Bijan is proposal to make it good! We have comments from some people against XML, but even understanding their world view I don't undertand their comments

Peter Patel-Schneider: There's good use and bad use of xml schema. Bijan is proposal to make it good! We have comments from some people against XML, but even understanding their world view I don't undertand their comments←

19:23:45 <bijan> pfps: It's not that RIF is using these operators, it's that they want to use imprecise inputs. If they gave that up, everything would be better and it would fit in with the stuff in OWL

Peter Patel-Schneider: It's not that RIF is using these operators, it's that they want to use imprecise inputs. If they gave that up, everything would be better and it would fit in with the stuff in OWL←

19:30:28 <alanr> if you think doing this is hard, try working with the actual XML specs

Alan Ruttenberg: if you think doing this is hard, try working with the actual XML specs←

19:30:33 <bijan> ...I suggested it in the first place. Well, I was hoping to eliminate floats, because they are hairy.

...I suggested it in the first place. Well, I was hoping to eliminate floats, because they are hairy.←

19:30:37 <sandro> boris: From an implementation point of view, there is a real problem here. At first, I wanted to get rid of floats, because they are hairy, but I don't see how to do that any more.

Boris Motik: From an implementation point of view, there is a real problem here. At first, I wanted to get rid of floats, because they are hairy, but I don't see how to do that any more. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←